Mission Accomplished Harper Divides Liberal Party
Tonight, Harper has succeeded in throwing a bomb into the Liberal Party…and we are about to see if it explodes
Votes FOR 149
Votes Against 145
30 Liberals voted in favor of the resolution, allowing it to pass. I was in favor of the resolution. This was a clear booby-trap set up by Harper. Now, 3 parties out of 4 voted against the mission in Afghanistan.
Oh, but Antonio, if they had given us more time to debate and a better picture of what was going on, we would have been in favor. WHAT?
Are some people seriously telling me, they are in favor of helping the Afghan people restore civil society contingent on the fact that we want to discuss this in a committee?
Some people are reading polls. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe showed a complete lack of leadership by reading polls saying Canadians wanted to hear more about the mission, so they were withdrawing support for it. “We support the mission to Afghanistan but we just voted against it.” We will see how the voters react to that.
Canada’s word used to mean something in the world. It meant something because when we made a commitment we kept it. How can we rail on Harper for reneging on Kyoto and at the same time vote against an international mission we have already committed to?
Michael Ignatieff, Bill Graham, Scott Brison, and the 21 other MPs showed some political principle last night. For Michael Ignatieff, a vote against last night would have been a vote against his entire academic career. Afghanistan’s own history is a textbook case of what happens when the international community cuts and runs from a commitment.
If you aren’t ready to stick it out til the end, don’t go in the first place. The Taliban was armed by the CIA in the 1980s during the Cold War. By leaving once the shooting starts, the message we send to the Afghans is “we will stay as long as its politically viable.” That’s the message we sent the Shia and the Kurds in 1991, and the mass graves are only being unearthed today.
The next time 60 Liberal MPs vote to inflict a society worse than all nightmares can imagine on 31 million people we pledged to help, they should ask themselves what is the right thing to do.
The Liberals must support being in Afghanistan to help the people they made a promise to. MPs get elected to keep promises to their constituents. To Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and 60 Liberal MPs, if your problem is how we are handling the mission down there, you all have opposition motions, they are all binding as the one last night. (as in not binding) I’m more than certain you would have 24 extra Liberal MPs right behind you as well. Beat Harper at his own game but please, know that above all, it is our duty to be there and keep our promises.
MPs who Voted Yea
Bagnell (Yukon)
Brison (NS)
Cullen (ON)
Cuzner (NS)
Easter (PEI)
Eyking (NS)
Folco (QC)
Graham (ON)
Guarnieri (ON)
Ignatieff (ON)
Lee (ON)
Maloney (ON)
McGuire (PEI)
McKay (ON)
Peterson (ON)
Redman (ON)
Regan (NS)
Rota (ON)
Savage (NS)
Simms (NL)
Thibault (NS)
Tonks (ON)
Wappel (ON)
Zed (NB)
Votes FOR 149
Votes Against 145
30 Liberals voted in favor of the resolution, allowing it to pass. I was in favor of the resolution. This was a clear booby-trap set up by Harper. Now, 3 parties out of 4 voted against the mission in Afghanistan.
Oh, but Antonio, if they had given us more time to debate and a better picture of what was going on, we would have been in favor. WHAT?
Are some people seriously telling me, they are in favor of helping the Afghan people restore civil society contingent on the fact that we want to discuss this in a committee?
Some people are reading polls. Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe showed a complete lack of leadership by reading polls saying Canadians wanted to hear more about the mission, so they were withdrawing support for it. “We support the mission to Afghanistan but we just voted against it.” We will see how the voters react to that.
Canada’s word used to mean something in the world. It meant something because when we made a commitment we kept it. How can we rail on Harper for reneging on Kyoto and at the same time vote against an international mission we have already committed to?
Michael Ignatieff, Bill Graham, Scott Brison, and the 21 other MPs showed some political principle last night. For Michael Ignatieff, a vote against last night would have been a vote against his entire academic career. Afghanistan’s own history is a textbook case of what happens when the international community cuts and runs from a commitment.
If you aren’t ready to stick it out til the end, don’t go in the first place. The Taliban was armed by the CIA in the 1980s during the Cold War. By leaving once the shooting starts, the message we send to the Afghans is “we will stay as long as its politically viable.” That’s the message we sent the Shia and the Kurds in 1991, and the mass graves are only being unearthed today.
The next time 60 Liberal MPs vote to inflict a society worse than all nightmares can imagine on 31 million people we pledged to help, they should ask themselves what is the right thing to do.
The Liberals must support being in Afghanistan to help the people they made a promise to. MPs get elected to keep promises to their constituents. To Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and 60 Liberal MPs, if your problem is how we are handling the mission down there, you all have opposition motions, they are all binding as the one last night. (as in not binding) I’m more than certain you would have 24 extra Liberal MPs right behind you as well. Beat Harper at his own game but please, know that above all, it is our duty to be there and keep our promises.
MPs who Voted Yea
Bagnell (Yukon)
Brison (NS)
Cullen (ON)
Cuzner (NS)
Easter (PEI)
Eyking (NS)
Folco (QC)
Graham (ON)
Guarnieri (ON)
Ignatieff (ON)
Lee (ON)
Maloney (ON)
McGuire (PEI)
McKay (ON)
Peterson (ON)
Redman (ON)
Regan (NS)
Rota (ON)
Savage (NS)
Simms (NL)
Thibault (NS)
Tonks (ON)
Wappel (ON)
Zed (NB)
par / by Anthony à / at 12:15 p.m.
9 Commentaires:
Kudos to Graham, Ignatieff, and others from this card-carrying Tory.
This is a debate that your gang is going to have to have before the next election -- suspect it'll be decided by who your next leader is.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(New! Improved! With fewer typos!)
I support the Canadian role in Afghanistan.
However, I doubt that a debate, with only three days notice, without briefings on the current context and plans for future roles for MPs, could really be called an informed debate.
The Conservatives and the Auditor General have been rightfully critical of the previous government for withholding information about the gun registry from Parliament. Without that information, the Auditor General believes that MPs could not make informed decsions.
Why then does this government think it is acceptable to force decisions on Parliament without providing all of the necessary information?
"Don't do as I said." is becoming the modus operandi for this government.
"How can we rail on Harper for reneging on Kyoto and at the same time vote against an international mission we have already committed to?"
We took the mission on because of 9/11. Today the objective is American piplines/USA strategic regional power. The mission changed. the vote should change.
We make think Canadian troops are there to bring happy and swell to Afghans but the reality is it's all about USA 'special interests'. I remember the day and the detail of the Soviet arranged assassination of the US Ambassador; this is just the ferris wheel going round one more time. Only now the US has Canada out front and center to make it look good to the world. Harper is gonna cost this country big time over this one.
We don't need to use Bush style phrases like "cut and run." I agree with you but don't think that's necessary. Its also irrelevant that is not a concern
At least you will admit to what Ig's stands for, US foreign policy. At least you are being honest now as is he.
Graham, Ignatieff and Brison cannot lead us into the next election against the Conservatives with any credibility.
Certainly not in Quebec which is the most opposed to our current mission in Khandahar.
H'm -- this comments section shows there are some real divides among you Liberals.
I'll toss another bomb in -- here's an Ignatieff foreign policy soundbite:
Ignatieff said that Republican foreign policy, focusing on promoting democracy, is better suited to the situation in the Middle East than what he termed the cautious, pragmatic neo-isolationism offered by the Democrats. "The times require real vision in the Middle East," he said.
Good on him for taking the issue seriously.
Will the hawkish wing of the Liberal Party survive? We'll see how Ignatieff's candidacy goes.
Decoin, I would like to point out that Prime Minister Chretien was the one who sent the troops to Afghanistan...and just as it was the right thing to do then, it is the right thing to do now.
Does anyone remember the LPC just fought an election where our party was committed to this mission? harper set a procedural trap and 8 leadership candidates fell in.
It now appears 8 candidates for the LPC leadership voted to bring the troops home...WHICH THEY DID NOT...but we all saw the news today...we all saw how the media spun it.
I stand by my view, I would have voted for the resolution. I am happy Michael voted for it.
In fairness, we have completed our original mission - this was a vote to extend it.
Post a Comment
<< Home